Dreamy

Imagine this scenario.

Your daughter is married to a man who decides he is bisexual.

He begins an affair with a man, and your daughter knows about it...and it is ripping her and the family apart.

She goes to the man and explains so to him. "Don't you realize what you are doing with my husband is tearing us apart ...destroying a family!"

She is CRITICISING the gay man.

You blokes are extremely shallow at times.. u know TOHOR lah.. because it doesn't tweak in your dim dark heads that if you criminalize criticism of SEXUAL orientation today.. you can criminalize criticism of POLITICAL opinion tomorrow.

This is why feedom of robust expression is absolutely vital for a free society.

Do you ever criticize anyone for anything ? Do you criticize politicians.. council people.. police... ?

Outlawing 'criticism' is off the planet mate. In fact it's FASCISM.

Boaz, I think you may be imagining things.

Again.

But I may be mistaken in my reading, so do put me right if I am.

>>She goes to the man and explains so to him. "Don't you realize what you are doing with my husband is tearing us apart ...destroying a family!" She is CRITICISING the gay man.<<

Are you suggesting that such a statement as you describe here is in any way actionable?

On what grounds?

If not, what are you trying to say?

Al
Criticising someone who is breaking up your family is not illegal. The daughter is not criticising him because he is gay only for sleeping with her husband. The lover could equally be a woman and the same would apply.

There is a big difference no matter how long you draw that bow...

This is getting into the realm of fantasy now.

pelican: << This is getting into the realm of fantasy now. >>

As it always has with our Boazy :)

Often good for a chuckle though, so long as you don't take him seriously.

Way to go Graham! Since the people who fell foul of posting rules will probably not compliment you and most won't bother I'll say that it is good to see you are moderating. People will just have to learn to be civil.

Dream On,

Thank you for attempting to promote the rights of fellow human beings in a situation where you have inferred someone might be covertly attempting to repress them.

However have you considered the consequences of the type of approach you seem to be taking. To those who don't embrace the relevant lifestyle it must look like a lot of bobbing and weaving. Is it possible that things could be framed in a way that could avoid that appearance? Or at the least this could be accounted for?

eg. Person 1 "It is normal to be gay because people are not choosing their sexual attraction."
Person 2 "If that is normal then so to is paedophilia because they don't choose their sexual attraction either."
Person 1 "Don't dare discuss that it is insulting to gays." "Don't compare an abhorent practice with people having consensual adult sex.

The second person ends up with the impression that their argument cannot be addressed.

eg. Person 1 "We should protect homosexuals from unfair discrimination"
Person 2 "We need to avoid any loss of free speech or the censoring of a debate on a rather controversial issue."
Person 1 "No negativity can be expressed or it might drive people to suicide."
Person 2 "But that is a myth. Someone did a calculation based on the Kinsian 10% of the population being homosexuals and came up with inflated suicide figures. An inference was made that it must be due to discrimination. However subsequent research indicates that the group suicides for the same reasons as heterosexual youth eg. relationship breakup."

Again the second person gets the impression that they are facing an attempt to shame them into silence and may infer that that is because their argument can't be addressed.

Changing the topic slightly: What is it with you and Catholics anyway?